Allowed

Surinder Kaur v. Paramjit Singh Palia

Punjab & Haryana HC31 May 2012TA/674/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a transfer application filed under Section 24 CPC by a wife to shift a divorce suit filed by her husband from Chandigarh to Jalandhar, citing her residence and employment there.

What did the court decide?

Transfer of the petition titled 'Col. Paramjit Singh Palia Vs. Surinder Kaur' from Additional District Judge, U.T. Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

Surinder Kaur Vs Paramjit Singh Palia — Matrimonial and Divorce | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

TA No.674 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

TA No.674 of 2011

¶5

Date of decision : 31.05.2012

¶6

Professor Surinder Kaur

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

Col. Paramjit Singh Palia

¶10

...Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶12

Present: Mr. MS Sachdeva, Advocate for the applicant.

¶13

Mr. Dinesh Ghai, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶14

Parties in person.

¶15

JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present application has been preferred by the applicantwife under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for the transfer of the petition titled as ‘Col. Paramjit Singh Palia Vs. Prof. Surinder Kaur’, filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short `the Act'), from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, U.T. Chandigarh, to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is working as a Lecturer and Head of the Department of

¶18

TA No.674 of 2011 2

¶19

Chemistry at Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar, whereas the respondent is a retiree. The learned counsel further contends that the respondent-husband is also residing at Jalandhar, however, he has filed the petition under Section 13 of the HMA 1955, at Chandigarh only with a view to harass the applicant.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused

¶22

the record.

¶23

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Neelam Kanwar vs Devinder Singh Kanwar, 2001(1) M.L.J. 509 (SC), has observed as

¶24

under:-

¶25

“…we are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is a lady and first respondent is a male, and, therefore, conveniencewise, a transfer to the place where the lady is residing, would be preferred by this Court unless it is shown that there are special reasons not to do so. No such special reason is shown.”

¶26

The applicant-wife is residing at Jalandhar. The respondent-husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the HMA 1955, which is pending before learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The fact of the applicant being a Lecturer is a strong circumstance in her favour as her absence from the College would affect the studies of the students. Otherwise also, in a petition filed by

¶27

¶28

TA No.674 of 2011

¶29

the husband against the wife, convenience of the wife cannot be ignored.

¶30

In view of the above, this Court feels that the balance of convenience is in favour of the applicant-wife and against the respondent.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant transfer application is allowed and the petition under Section 13 of the Act titled as ‘Col. Paramjit Singh Palia Vs. Surinder Kaur’ is withdrawn from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, U.T. Chandigarh, and is transferred to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. The entire record pertaining to the petition under Section 13 of the Act shall be sent by the trial Court at U.T. Chandigarh, to the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, within three weeks, who will either himself dispose it of or entrust it to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar.

¶32

The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, on 16.07.2012 at 10.00 a.m.

¶33

31.05.2012

¶34

atulsethi

¶35

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶36

Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter ? Yes / No

Surinder Kaur v. Paramjit Singh Palia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Kaur v. Paramjit Singh Palia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Rani Vs Krishna Devi & Ors.

Veena Rani Vs Hiramuni & Ors.

Lakhi Ram and Ors. Vs Sushil Kumar @ Shilu and Ors.

Anita & Ors. Vs Prem Singh Negi & Ors.

Saroj Bala @ Priyanka Vs Naresh Kumar

Manpreet Kaur Vs Kulbir Singh @ Sunny